Callaways are very close: their relatedness is within a few centuries. I spoke about this in other threads here.Of course if Argiedude wasn't Italian by his Y (Argentine, desaparecidos, etc.) I would be very sorry.

The testing of the French for free was random. It was not a case of hunting for and cherry-picking only those who looked likely to be L21+ (an almost impossible task anyway). We just recruited those who were willing to give permission to be tested and who weren't already obviously L21-.

Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?

For Italy, I counted the number of Italians that are in the L21 project: 5.My calculations are of course entirely dependent on what is there in this project.My goal was not to say that Italy is at 1% or 5% or 10%, but make comparisons between some European countries.Knowing where you find most L21, L21 least ect..

How, from a single haplotype, can you be convinced that Italy is the home region of L21?

How, from a single haplotype, can you be convinced that Italy is the home region of L21?

The fact that Italy could be the origin of the wave of advance of R-L21* is suggested by your map: the wave of advance has a low percentage in the point of origin and progressively more on the crest. Of course everything depends on the fact that in Italy R-L21* there is, but it could not be at all.All depends on the Argiedude’s haplotype. I have said many times how we should ascertain it.Certainly the three Callaways related to it must be explained. They are different from the other Callaways of the Callaways project at FTDNA and we don’t know their origin. They could be also of French origin (Normans or other) and we have two possibilities: if Argiedude is of Italian extraction, either his haplotype is from France like other Italians of the Alpine zone (see Bonnet and Leimone) or these Callaways of possible French extraction testify the same wave of advance from Italy.

Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?

I was keeping track of the numbers, but for me to give you the numbers now, I would have to go back and make a count. The point is that we tested randomly, so, as far as we were concerned, the men we were testing were as likely to be L21- as they were to be L21+. In fact, at the time, I was afraid we were wasting our money and would come up with very few positive results. I was pleasantly surprised, however.

That makes it hard to say the L21+ figures for France are inflated because we paid for some testing, because we also paid for the testing of those who came out L21-. Conversely, if we hadn't paid for some testing, the French L21 figures would be deflated and misleading.

If L21 were not pretty common in France, we would not have gotten as many positive results as we did.

Another factor is that the pool of potential French subjects is very limited, especially when compared with the pool of British isles subjects.

What would you think if you shall compare Argiedude's haplotype to this (Ysearch: GPYZW)?

I think we need all 67 markers to make much of an evaluation. GPYZW might have some of the off-modals in the slower markers that match a cluster, but either way we'd see his Genetic Distance from WAMH better as well as if more of the slower moving markers are unique.

Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?

I was keeping track of the numbers, but for me to give you the numbers now, I would have to go back and make a count. The point is that we tested randomly, so, as far as we were concerned, the men we were testing were as likely to be L21- as they were to be L21+. In fact, at the time, I was afraid we were wasting our money and would come up with very few positive results. I was pleasantly surprised, however.

That makes it hard to say the L21+ figures for France are inflated because we paid for some testing, because we also paid for the testing of those who came out L21-. Conversely, if we hadn't paid for some testing, the French L21 figures would be deflated and misleading.

If L21 were not pretty common in France, we would not have gotten as many positive results as we did.

Another factor is that the pool of potential French subjects is very limited, especially when compared with the pool of British isles subjects.

My objective is probably pretentious...

Your map on the distribution of L21 in Europe is very interresting, http://tinyurl.com/qo2e4mbut as you say, it is biased by the different number of people per country who are testing.And I think there is a way around this problem if we consider that French, having already made a test DNA, has so much chance to be tested the snp L21, that an Irish would make it..

My calculations would be wrong if I take into account the L21 French who have not make this test without your help.My calculations are simple:In the FTDNA database, there are 10,864 German and 2982 French.10864 / 2982 = 3.6If in the reality, there are as many L21 in Germany than in France (in percentage) So, in the DNA project L21 +, there should be 3.6 times more than L21 German than L21 French

PS: I do not absolutely criticize the fact that you tested French or the other persons, on the contrary, it can turn out very useful.And this dna project stay, in my opinion, a reference for all those who are interested in L21.Continuez comme ça!

My calculations would be wrong if I take into account the L21 French who have not make this test without your help.My calculations are simple:In the FTDNA database, there are 10,864 German and 2982 French.10864 / 2982 = 3.6If in the reality, there are as many L21 in Germany than in France (in percentage) So, in the DNA project L21 +, there should be 3.6 times more than L21 German than L21 French

I think there could be a complication in this because of the no. of Y descended Europeans living in America, Australia etc. which would have to be factored in somehow. I think Ireland in particular is very well represented in America.

They're 7 apart at 25 markers, Gioiello. The only striking similarity is the oddball 19=10. 11-11 at 385 is probably a RecLoH (I have it, for example).It would be more interesting if they both had 67 markers to compare, but if there is some sort of connection between argiedude and Kellaway, it must be pretty ancient.

Rich and Mike, the MRCA between Callaway and Argiedude is about 1500/1800 YBP. These are the unique close haplotypes we can find thus far among persons tested all over the world, then they are certainly related.Mutations are all around the modal: DYS390=24/25, DYS391=10/11, DYS426=12/13, DYS389II=30/31, DYS458=16/17, DYS448=20/21.For what I know of this stuff (and I think it isn't a few) they are certainly related. For my theory of the mutations around the modal the MRCA could be also more ancient (we'd need some intermediate haplotype), but the important thing is that they are certainly related and all my hypotheses are alive more than ever.

Gioiello,I don't think they are that close, at least based on the 25-marker Kellaway haplotype in Ysearch that I could compare with argiedude's haplotype.If they are already 7 apart at a mere 25 markers, how far apart would they be at 67?

We neither know if Callaways are R-L21, but I suppose so. What is important to me is that they are related and we can suppose that there are some intermediate haplotypes between Callaway and Argiedude somewhere, probably very rare and difficult to find, but this is the unique trace to establish a link. As I have said before, this is the unique link found over the world. We should find where are these intermediate haplotypes and we’ll be able to understand which is the origin. I wouldn’t mind about how many mismatches there will be at an upgrade to 67 markers. As I have said, calculating the MRCA at 25 markers, we are at 1500/1800 YBP. It is clear to me that the inquire is all to do, but this is an indication, the unique we have thus far.

Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?

I was keeping track of the numbers, but for me to give you the numbers now, I would have to go back and make a count. The point is that we tested randomly, so, as far as we were concerned, the men we were testing were as likely to be L21- as they were to be L21+. In fact, at the time, I was afraid we were wasting our money and would come up with very few positive results. I was pleasantly surprised, however.

That makes it hard to say the L21+ figures for France are inflated because we paid for some testing, because we also paid for the testing of those who came out L21-. Conversely, if we hadn't paid for some testing, the French L21 figures would be deflated and misleading.

If L21 were not pretty common in France, we would not have gotten as many positive results as we did.

Another factor is that the pool of potential French subjects is very limited, especially when compared with the pool of British isles subjects.

I agree with Rich. Migration patterns may bias what ancestral areas tend to be tested by new world people. So I think certain parts of France ((NW and Atlantic), Germany (Rhineland) etc will be tested more. However in these areas there is no reason that a random testing of R1b1b2 would bias in favour of L21. Possibly the very high rate of L21 being positive among the French R1b1b2 is simply due to the parts of France where most of the migrants left from is also by coincidence the high L21 area and relatively few were from the lower L21 south and east.

I think however that the project and Myres data are not in contradiction as such in terms of France. In fact the pattern of L21 frequency within France is not a bad fit. The signficant west of France L21 result in Myres study maybe suggests is that the east-west cline is as important as the north-south one. That sounds like there may be a division in L21 frequency that maybe runs in a line from Paris to Pyrenees.

Of course the dating of 1500/1800 YBP is the minimum date. I would contradict myself if I don’t say that the maximum could be many thousands of years. It depends on which we think to be the cluster: if DYS19=10 and DYS385=11-11, certainly a recLOH, and not the very rare DYS426 mutated by Argiedude from 12 to 13. Of course also an upgrade of Callaway would be important: to see for instance if his DYS460/H4 are 10-12 and DYS442 if is 11.These Callaway are in the Callaway project at FTDNA: write to them and ask for an upgrade and we’ll know more.My experience says that Callaway and Argiedude are related and belong to the same cluster.

Let’s make one hypothesis: that X56RP (Name withheld, nickname Argiedude: DYS19=10), GPYZW (Kellaway: DYS19=10), 5769R (Richter: DYS19=10) and FT979 (Smith: DYS19=11) are related. Counting the mutations upon the first 25 markers we have about 21 mutations respect a presupposed modal of origin. Then:

[(454.21) : 100] . 25 = 2375YBP

Times are very recent and we don’t need correction for supplemental mutations around the modal, then mutations rate of 0,0022.

Then about 2400 years ago or a few centuries before someone had the multistep mutation of DYS19 from 14 to 10 (Smith 11 is a mutation from 10). Where did he live that individual? Probably among Celts of Central Europe and his descendants demonstrate the pathway of that people: someone remained in Germany or France, the most part migrated to the British Islands and a few in North Italy with the Celt invasion, then not R-U152, born in Italy and diffused some thousands of years before, but R-L21 would be the Celt marker.

Of course science is made by hypotheses and verifications: first of all we should ascertain if these four individuals are R-L21 (easy to know: it suffices a SNP test).

Of course this hypothesis doesn’t exclude my previous one, that Celts from Italic-Celts have come from Italy and before Central Europe they lived here and Argiedude is the remnant of that haplotype born there where it is (the Lakes region of the Italian Alps).

Maliclavelli, don't forget that L21 was first discovered in an Italian (the P66+ sample). Italy is piling on a little too many L21+ samples to think they're all congused about their ancestry. In my own case, being Argentine, I also have the added issue that even if I'm not of Italian ancestry, the only other significant European people here are Spanish, and they also have very little L21.

The Callaway sample is indeed interesting, but it could a coincidence, albeit somewhat of a longshot. And he's missing 426=13, the other weird STR value that I have. I think he should get tested to see to what subhaplogroup he belongs. Right now, he's just R1b1b2. The Myres study found 1 R1b1b2 sample with DYS19=10, and it was U106.

Also notice that so far the 3 north Italian L21 are from the west of north Italy, and that Myres study showed 7% L21 in southeast France, 2% in Switzerland, and 0% in Slovenia.

Maliclavelli, don't forget that L21 was first discovered in an Italian (the P66+ sample). Italy is piling on a little too many L21+ samples to think they're all congused about their ancestry. In my own case, being Argentine, I also have the added issue that even if I'm not of Italian ancestry, the only other significant European people here are Spanish, and they also have very little L21.

The Callaway sample is indeed interesting, but it could a coincidence, albeit somewhat of a longshot. And he's missing 426=13, the other weird STR value that I have. I think he should get tested to see to what subhaplogroup he belongs. Right now, he's just R1b1b2. The Myres study found 1 R1b1b2 sample with DYS19=10, and it was U106.

Also notice that so far the 3 north Italian L21 are from the west of north Italy, and that Myres study showed 7% L21 in southeast France, 2% in Switzerland, and 0% in Slovenia.

Argiedude, unfortunately for understanding somewhat by our analysis we must go deep in our family history and everything personal. I have just published my FGS on GenBank (HQ176413) and everyone can see my mutations, even though they can have some medical implications. If we don’t know the surname of Bonnet and Leimone we would think to an Italian extraction being they living in Italy, but their surname made me know they are of French extraction. You (and is said to me your surname is typical Lombard) remain the only Italian R-L21 I know. There are two Sicilians, but their cases probably have a different meaning from yours and it isn’t thus far demonstrated that they are of ancient Italian descent. I am forced to go deep in the personal because otherwise my analysis would be unreliable. I have made some hypotheses, but I have said that they will be able to be demonstrated. First to test for L21 these three individuals I have compared with you. You, by yours, could try to test some relative of yours in your Italian paternal line. My friend Giuseppe Belgeri is testing some relatives of his who are living around the world and is paying for them. If you find a relative of yours in Italy, who will be able to remain anonymous, I think that Rich will be glad to find a subscription at the R-L21 project for testing him, because at this point to ascertain your true origin has some importance also for the R-L21 project. I have said many times that my hope is that your Italian origin is demonstrated and that you are the remnant of the first R-L21 who left Italy for the westward migration, while I think that R-U106, the future German speaking, left before Italy Eastwards for central Europe, and their migration is clearly testified by Myres’ map: High Danube – Rhine to Netherlands.

“Your 9932A defines a medium-sized branch which will probably be a new, deeper subclade on a revised K tree in the future. Members of your branch trace back to the British Isles, the Netherlands and Italy”.

This seems to me very interesting. We frequently forget that modern peoples are the sum of many little tribes of the most ancient times and, even though peoples have mixed, probably they retain much of their ancient ancestors and may be of very different origin. If what you are saying is right, probably also ancient “Gallia” was composed from many tribes which, if were speaking a similar language, were composed by more ancient tribes which could have a different genetic origin. To test someone in a territory, without knowing the probably ancient settlements, can make us misunderstand the real genetic meaning of that test. Even though people has mixed, and nobody of us knows which were his ancestors 2 thousand or more years ago, only who knows the history of that territory can interpret those data. If you are right, R-L21 has a high rate in France only where there are peoples who have an ancient origin from those places where R-L21 has a high rate to-day.

But it could be right also the contrary: that Esubii of South-East France, near Italy, are the original people, that R-L21 was born here, and that Esubii of North West France derive from these and not the contrary. How can we answer this question?

But it could be right also the contrary: that Esubii of South-East France, near Italy, are the original people, that R-L21 was born here, and that Esubii of North West France derive from these and not the contrary. How can we answer this question?

We can only see that they had the same god (Esus).

Usually, we consider the ancient peoples of the French Alps as part of the Ligures.They also apparently common points with the peoples of northern Gaul.